A retired police chief who had denied a series of allegations about his behaviour has lost a High Court fight with a police and crime commissioner.

Mark Gilmore, who became chief constable of West Yorkshire in 2013, complained that West Yorkshire police commissioner Mark Burns-Williamson had unfairly failed to decide whether he had a "case to answer" after misconduct allegations were made.

He asked a judge to order Mr Burns-Williamson to "make a case-to-answer decision".

But Mr Justice Supperstone, who recently analysed rival arguments at a High Court trial in London, dismissed his application.

He said Mr Burns-Williamson was "under no obligation to made a case-to-answer determination".

The judge spelled out a serious of allegations made against Mr Gilmore when he was heading the West Yorkshire force in a written ruling published on Tuesday.

Mr Gilmore had been accused of having an "inappropriate relationship" with bosses at a car dealership; using that relationship to "benefit personally via the purchase of a VW Golf for his son"; treating colleagues "inappropriately"; making "comments of a sexual nature to female staff"; misusing police resources and bypassing an "official procurement process" in order to "employ a friend in a senior management role".

He denied the allegations.

Mr Justice Supperstone said Mr Gilmore had said he was retiring in August 2016 - about two weeks after Mr Burns-Williamson was presented with an investigator's report into the car dealership allegations.

The judge said the central issue he had considered related to whether legislation required a police commissioner to make a case-to-answer decision when the officer who was under investigation had retired.

Mr Burns-Williamson had said he was "contemplating" making a decision that Mr Gilmore had a "gross misconduct case to answer" in relation to the car dealership allegations - prior to Mr Gilmore's retirement announcement.

But he said he had "not made that decision in a formal sense".

The judge concluded that Mr Burns-Williamson had "not in fact" made a decision and said he was not now under an obligation to make a "case-to-answer determination".

Jeremy Johnson QC, who represented Mr Gilmore, had told the judge that a police watchdog and prosecutors found "no evidence of wrongdoing" following separate inquiries.

Mr Johnson said all Mr Gilmore was asking was for Mr Burns-Williamson to make a decision on the investigation he initiated.

John Beggs QC, who represented Mr Burns-Williamson, said: "But for (his) decision to retire, he would have received the decision.

"Further, he knew what the decision would be, which is precisely why he retired when he did, taking his pension and avoiding any further investigation or public misconduct hearing.

"His claim is disingenuous."

Mr Gilmore, who began his career with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, worked for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and is a former deputy chief constable of Northumbria Police, had been at the trial but was not in court on Tuesday to hear Mr Justice Supperstone announce his decision.

Let us send you our Newsletter

Our editors will email you a roundup of their favourite stories from across AOL